I joined Brown University as Associate Provost and Director of Institutional Diversity in July of 2003 just a few months after President Simmons announced the formation of the Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. The committee’s charge was to provide insight into issues surrounding the historical role of the transatlantic slave trade and its relationship to Brown. The  method of this work was to engage a critical intellectual exploration using scholarly resources from a range of perspectives towards stimulating deep, serious and rigorous thought on the subject. The charge was, in President Simmons’ words, “to do what universities do.”  

One of my first assignments was to staff the committee. Publicly, this meant that my office would provide administrative support for the committee’s work. Privately, it quickly became apparent that I would be serving as arbitrator for the process. Primarily, the composition of the committee presented complications that required management. President Simmons wanted a range of perspectives represented. To achieve this, she appointed committee members from diverse disciplines, racial and ethnic groups, and genders.  Disciplines represented included philosophers, historians, and behavioral scientists, to name a few.  While the potential for diverse perspectives yielded from this configuration was great, it produced conflicts that required compromise. Two issues in particular threatened the progress of the committee from the outset.  First, African Americanists on the committee embraced the notion that there is a relationship between the racial terror of slavery and contemporary racial disparities. Other scholars from different perspectives questioned this assumption. Another challenge needing arbitration was whether to embrace the concept of crimes against humanity as descriptive of chattel slavery in the Americas. Some felt that the phrase was appropriate and fitting; others believed the concept was proprietary to different past atrocities. These issues impeded the early progress of the committee and required negotiation behind the scenes. For me this meant strategizing with the chair and the president on methods to move the conversation along including providing resources like books and lectures, listening and responding to all sides and convincing President Simmons to meet with the committee to provide her insight. Through these types of interventions, the committee was able to move past the conceptual barriers. Indeed, by the end of our work, the committee as a whole adopted both of the ideas as reflected in the final report.

The report of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice is a model of excellence derived from inclusive, informed and rigorous deliberations. Some believe that such products can emerge organically by simply bringing smart motivated people together to solve a problem. President Simmons did not leave such an important task to chance. Like most of her decisions, appointing me to staff the committee was strategic. She anticipated the clashes in ideology and perspectives. She knew that the committee would need more than administrative support. She knew before we started that the committee would need a shepherd. That she trusted me to be that guide, is an honor that I hold dearly.